It is not inappropriate to use the term "Final Solution" when discussing that a truly effective military solution might involve the killing of 300 million Arabs or 1B+ Muslims. What term would you use?
The major difference between such a "solution" and that of the Nazis is that the Arabs and Muslims really are, as you say, an existential threat to Israel, and the Jews being a threat to Germany was a delusion.
Those who argue the ineffectiveness of non-military solutions may be entirely correct, but the military solutions that we're willing to accept may be no more effective.
"It is not inappropriate to use the term "Final Solution" when discussing that a truly effective military solution might involve the killing of 300 million Arabs or 1B+ Muslims. What term would you use?"
We don't have to kill all the muslims to win the war just like we didn't have to kill all the japanese during WWII. You have to destroy the leadership or the will to fight. That's how a war ends. We can do both but their indeed will be a billion or more casualties. Remember who is arming & supporting the proxy nations who in turn arm terrorists: Russia & China. They will become involved at some point as we continue lifting the smokescreens and that is where it really turns ugly.
"Final solution" is over-doing it a bit. Surely it was Nazi Germany's stated goal. However, it did not take an in-kind Final Soultion to subdue both Japan and Nazi Germany. In that light it seems that it would equally not take a Final Solution senario to subdue radical Islam....
I was recently wondering if it was going to take a Hiroshima or Dresden to force the radicals to relent to be honest.
Unfortuantely we will not have the guts to do it until we suffer the first blow. Likewise for Israel...:/